jason, this isnt really "testing" anything is it? Its even less "falsifiying"

This guy quite clearly does not understand evolution, and i doubt his credentials as a biologist. From one biologist to another, this guy is a moron.

For a start, he has neglected to mention (i wonder why?) that many - indeed most- antibiotics are naturally-occurring compounds, produced by living organisms to kill other living organisms. Take penicillin for instance; produced by the convienently-titled Penicillium fungi to kill. But many of our most effective antibiotics have been produced by BACTERIA. Bacteria produce antibiotics to kill other bacteria. So his "mystery" of bacterial resistance from past times isnt really that mysterious is it?

bacteria, and bacterial resistence to antibiotics, have been around for as long as bacteria have. 4 billion years. Thats entirely compatable with evolution, by the way.

My hypothesis is that when the people in the example died, the constituents and conditions of their gut flora changed. Their guts became a more competitive environment as free-nutrients decreased, and so bacterial communities engaged in a classic evolutionary arms race, with production of antibiotics, and evolution of resistance to antibiotics. Because most of these bacteria are commensal and otherwise, very ubquitious in mammal digestive tracts, its not suprising that they have evolved resistence to antibiotics.

Could it be, just maybe, that some of those bacteria produce similar antibiotics (perhaps the same antibiotics) as those exploited by modern medicine?

Maybe, but that would mean thinking about it... Just a little. YECs scare me how easily they can quote-mine and provide a totally-one sided argument. Jason, did you even think about what this guy is saying?

This "Dr" then goes on to talk about apparent stasis in the fossil record, relying, purely and simply on subjective and anecdotal assessments of

"it hasnt changed its look in millions of years"

No, on first impressions, its morphology hasnt changed. Should we dig a little deeper, maybe, and find, that even though this fruitfly doesnt look all that different from any other, it is still a distinct species, reproductively isolated from others? .....Nah.

What this guy doesnt understand, and what i suspect YECs in general dont understand, is that things DONT HAVE TO EVOLVE. Evolution is an interplay between both the environment and the genetics of organism in question. Unless some factor in the environment produces a constant selective pressure over time, there is no way the genetics of the organism can be directed to produce a meaningful new "form". It comes from necessity, not from a form of evolution more akin to POKEMON, with things getting stronger, faster and bigger (and more fun to play with).

The reason why fruitflies have remained (on the surface at least), pretty similar, is because their niche hasnt changed much either. Organisms around them may have changed alot. Another turbulent niche down the road may have selected for some pretty explosive evolution, but, if the party isnt happening for our fruitflies, they will remain as fruitflies. Evolution is both specific to niches, and reponsive to niches.

If this man is going to "test" evolution, it might be sporting to first provide an accurate description of what it is; rather than what you would like to think it is.

Why does YEC have this complusion to misrepresent science!!!! whats with it????? Cant you be honest?

I'm well aware that your an evolutionists that does'nt predict evolution. Things staying the same for ever is perfectly compatible with evolution as far as your concerned. No wonder Don Patton is ignorant of evolution, the theory, according to you, has changed to no evolution.

Is'nt that what creation predicts?

No where in his talk or the sources he referenced, did it mention penicillin or any other naturally occuring antibiotics. Almost all antibiotics are synthetic.

I'm well aware that your an evolutionists that does'nt predict evolution. Things staying the same for ever is perfectly compatible with evolution as far as your concerned. No wonder Don Patton is ignorant of evolution, the theory, according to you, has changed to no evolution.

Is'nt that what creation predicts?

No where in his talk or the sources he referenced, did it mention penicillin or any other naturally occuring antibiotics. Almost all antibiotics are synthetic.

Stop deliberately ignoring what im saying. You know full well i dont promote your charicature. I understand that evolution is actually a complicated concept to get around, but you can at least talk like an adult.

Creationism doesnt make predictions. "GOD" is not a prediction. Your prediction, if one can be made, is merely, "evolution hasnt happened", which doesnt actually advance anyones knowledge to the contrary. Thats because the contrary (GOD) is not testable or even supportable with evidence. Its just a blatent refusal to accept criticism of dogmatic religious belief.

Evolution does not quantitively predict when and how much something will evolve. We can only predict, based on observations of natural selection, mutation rates and gene frequencies, how likely it is that the prevalence of given trait will increase in a population. Thats the point. Random mutation, remember? Random drift. Evolution is merely the description of what has happened, when something does happen. Im sorry if you dont like it, but thats how evolution by natural selection has always been. Apparently, you and "Dr Jackofallsciences" disagree.

I KNOW he doesnt mention pencillin or even the name of the antibiotic in question, but that should only make you think further. Why doesnt he? We have paid good money to attend and organise this huge scientific conference, and the most we get is quotes. We have to take them at face value, because thats all we can do with them. Wheres the data? Wheres the P-value? Wheres even the hypothesis?

Its a joke. I could read these quotes at home, and have the priviledge of a cup of tea, or an ice-cold beer.

Presumably you share my opinion? Objectivity and all that.

I havent said that all antibiotics are naturally occurring. But, think about it, if these bacteria apparently evolved resistance to a modern antibiotic, it should tell you one of two things:

1) The modern antibiotic in question is the same as that naturally occuring in commensal gut communities

2) The modern antibiotic in question, by design or co-incidence, shares basic chemical structure (and thus function) with that occuring in commensal gut communities. Given that there are only a few permutations of organic antibiotic structures that will work on bacterial cells, this isnt actually an unreasonable explanation.

Either way, there isnt enough "evidence" (is evidence even the word?) for this jackass to make his claim, that evolution cant explain this. "Evolution has failed a test". Its rediculous. The issue, actually, is that he cant explain it (for one reason or another), and hes not even tried too. Hes taken an out-of-context quote and hes not telling his naive audience the whole truth. Hes a conman, plain and simple. Dont fall for it.

Well it's removed like all videos on youtube that make a point against evolution. I often have to find another source for videos like this.

Added: I just did the math on how many changes there would be in 50 million years. It works out to: 1,314,000,000,000,000 generations and no changes.

My guess is, its been removed because of copyright. This guy wants to actually charge money for his "knowledge". Theres loads of crap YEC vids on there.

So McStone, since you cannot actually overthrow the evidence presented, you resort to name calling and be-littleing.

You claim that things don't have to evolve because their niches haven't really changed. You see, if I moved to the North Pole, I would basically be changing my environment and niche... completely different from the subtropical climate that I'm in now. Does that mean I'm going to evolve? Of course you could say yes, or you don't have to, or evolution doesn't have to do it.

There's plenty of evidence for God, but as your post's show, not hardly any evidence for evolution... except biased opinion, and the resorting to an Atheistical Dogmatic belief system.

You claim that things don't have to evolve because their niches haven't really changed. You see, if I moved to the North Pole, I would basically be changing my environment and niche... completely different from the subtropical climate that I'm in now. Does that mean I'm going to evolve?

So McStone, since you cannot actually overthrow the evidence presented, you resort to name calling and be-littleing.

You claim that things don't have to evolve because their niches haven't really changed. You see, if I moved to the North Pole, I would basically be changing my environment and niche... completely different from the subtropical climate that I'm in now. Does that mean I'm going to evolve? Of course you could say yes, or you don't have to, or evolution doesn't have to do it.

There's plenty of evidence for God, but as your post's show, not hardly any evidence for evolution... except biased opinion, and the resorting to an Atheistical Dogmatic belief system.

Thats such a simplistic analysis.

Well what do you think would happen?Are the people, currently living in polar regions, evolving? Native populations may be slightly stockier on average, but they are still homo sapiens, able to interbreed with any other population. They will still die if left butt-naked. Humans, as a species, are able to take their niche with them, thats why we are so extrordinary. Clothing, for instance, has the same effect of blubber. It is our brain - the ultimate adaptation almost - that allows us to plan for any scenario and bypass milllions of years of evolution. So, no, humans would not evolve in polar regions (beyond local adaptation to diet, altitude etc) because their niche fundmentally remains the same. If surrounding temperatures rose by even 20 degrees, they would just take some layers off. With these artificial barriers to aid our survival, we will not be exposed to strong enough selective environmental pressures. To some extent, the human brain is the "get-out-of-evolution card".

Predation on young? We can kill them. Disease? We can make drugs. Fertility? We can artificially inseminate.

There isnt alot out there that can touch us. But if we took off our clothes, you might wonder, why cant we evolve now?

The answer is because their isnt enough pre-existing variation in the human form to build on. If you look at other polar animals, such as the artic fox, you will find alternative forms on lower latitudes. The artic fox, with simple winter time adjustments in its fur layering, is able to survive winter-time arctic temperatures. It cant in the summer time, because its fur is essentially no different from any other fox in temperate regions. The point is, the fox had a "reserve" mechanism to fall back on in evolution. Simple adjustments in fur density and layering allowed to acquire a range accross polar regions. The human lineage is in hot africa, with no such need for warmth. Because of this, human populations cannot take, physiologically, the initial risk of entering polar regions (without clothing), without dying. If humans die on instant exposure, then any mutations, (perhaps contributing in time, to an appropiate adaptation), will be lost. Its only with successful reproduction, time after time, that evolution can occur.

Humans will never evolve a blubber-rich physiology in polar regions (allowing nakedness), because they will just die everytime they try.Natural selection cannot craft perfect organisms.

Scott, im just telling it like it is. The guy in the video is totally clueless, and he is academically dishonest. Trust me, im not trying to fool you.

So McStone, since you cannot actually overthrow the evidence presented, you resort to name calling and be-littleing.

You claim that things don't have to evolve because their niches haven't really changed. You see, if I moved to the North Pole, I would basically be changing my environment and niche... completely different from the subtropical climate that I'm in now. Does that mean I'm going to evolve? Of course you could say yes, or you don't have to, or evolution doesn't have to do it.

There's plenty of evidence for God, but as your post's show, not hardly any evidence for evolution... except biased opinion, and the resorting to an Atheistical Dogmatic belief system.

Thats such a simplistic analysis, and where, anywhere, have i been biased? Ive not been biased in my worldview, just as i have not been naive in it. Most, if not all of my criticisms, should be obvious to YECs too. Apparently, they are not.

What do you think would happen?Are the people, currently living in polar regions, evolving? Native populations may be slightly stockier on average, but they are still homo sapiens, able to interbreed with any other population. They will still die if left butt-naked. Humans, as a species, are able to take their niche with them, thats why we are so extrordinary. Clothing, for instance, has the same effect of blubber. It is our brain - the ultimate adaptation almost - that allows us to plan for any scenario and bypass milllions of years of evolution. So, no, humans would not evolve in polar regions (beyond local adaptation to diet, altitude etc) because their niche fundmentally remains the same. If surrounding temperatures rose by even 20 degrees, they would just take some layers off. With these artificial barriers to aid our survival, we will not be exposed to strong enough selective environmental pressures. To some extent, the human brain is the "get-out-of-evolution card".

Predation on young? We can kill them. Disease? We can make drugs. Fertility? We can artificially inseminate.

There isnt alot out there that can touch us. But if we took off our clothes, you might wonder, why cant we evolve now?

The answer is because their isnt enough pre-existing variation in the human form to build on. If you look at other polar animals, such as the artic fox, you will find alternative forms on lower latitudes. The artic fox, with simple winter time adjustments in its fur layering, is able to survive winter-time arctic temperatures. It cant in the summer time, because its fur is essentially no different from any other fox in temperate regions. The point is, the fox had a "reserve" mechanism to fall back on in evolution. Simple adjustments in fur density and layering allowed to acquire a range accross polar regions. The human lineage is in hot africa, with no such need for warmth. Because of this, human populations cannot take, physiologically, the initial risk of entering polar regions (without clothing), without dying. If humans die on instant exposure, then any mutations, (perhaps contributing in time, to an appropiate adaptation), will be lost. Its only with successful reproduction, time after time, that evolution can occur.

Humans will never evolve a blubber-rich physiology in polar regions (allowing nakedness), because they will just die everytime they try.Natural selection cannot craft perfect organisms.

Scott, im just telling it like it is. The guy in the video is not only totally clueless, he is academically dishonest - and he wants you to be as well. Trust me, im not trying to fool you.

What this guy doesnt understand, and what i suspect YECs in general dont understand, is that things DONT HAVE TO EVOLVE. Evolution is an interplay between both the environment and the genetics of organism in question. Unless some factor in the environment produces a constant selective pressure over time, there is no way the genetics of the organism can be directed to produce a meaningful new "form". It comes from necessity, not from a form of evolution more akin to POKEMON, with things getting stronger, faster and bigger (and more fun to play with).

What you guy doesnt understand , and What I suspect Evos in general dont understand, is that MUTATION HAPPENS DESPITE ENVIRONMENT CHANGES.

Creationism doesnt make predictions. "GOD" is not a prediction. Your prediction, if one can be made, is merely, "evolution hasnt happened", which doesnt actually advance anyones knowledge to the contrary. Thats because the contrary (GOD) is not testable or even supportable with evidence. Its just a blatent refusal to accept criticism of dogmatic religious belief.

Creation makes very exact predictions and you know exactly what they are. Your only mad because every science confirms our predictions and leaves you constantly changing yours.

Even the topic at hand confirms the predictions of creation - simply because we predict adaptation by means other than genetic mutation and natural selection. And as it turns out, antibiotic resistance is the result of the genes "pre-existing" ability to produce a different protein when needed. No change or slight mutation occured to the gene, so it does'nt fit with your babbling either way.

Stasis in the fossil record is also a prediction of creation. If things were created , then it would easily be seen in the fossil record that they don't evolve. And there is no better proof of that than precambrian cyanobacteria. Making up ad hoc excuses to try and shoehorn stasis into the TOE is a contradiction of the very premise used to justify it.

How many global extinctions do secular scientists claim occured? At least five that I know of. And now you wish to posit that no selective pressure has ever been applied to cyanobacteria during those five major extinctions?

Please.

The frozen bacteria and the wild types referenced, have never been exposed to any of the synthetic antibiotics produced to counter-act resistance to antibiotiocs.

Even penicillin has been chemicaly re-engineered many times.

The narrow range of treatable diseases or spectrum of activity of the penicillins, along with the poor activity of the orally active phenoxymethylpenicillin, led to the search for derivatives of penicillin that could treat a wider range of infections. The isolation of 6-APA, the nucleus of penicillin, allowed for the preparation of semisynthetic penicillins, with various improvements over benzylpenicillin (bioavailability, spectrum, stability, tolerance).

The first major development was ampicillin, which offered a broader spectrum of activity than either of the original penicillins. Further development yielded beta-lactamase-resistant penicillins including flucloxacillin, dicloxacillin and meticillin. These were significant for their activity against beta-lactamase-producing bacteria species, but are ineffective against the methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains that subsequently emerged.

Another development of the line of true penicillins was the antipseudomonal penicillins, such as carbenicillin, ticarcillin, and piperacillin, useful for their activity against Gram-negative bacteria. However, the usefulness of the beta-lactam ring was such that related antibiotics, including the mecillinams, the carbapenems and, most important, the cephalosporins, still retain it at the center of their structures.

Thats such a simplistic analysis, and where, anywhere, have i been biased? Ive not been biased in my worldview, just as i have not been naive in it. Most, if not all of my criticisms, should be obvious to YECs too. Apparently, they are not.

What do you think would happen?Are the people, currently living in polar regions, evolving? Native populations may be slightly stockier on average, but they are still homo sapiens, able to interbreed with any other population. They will still die if left butt-naked. Humans, as a species, are able to take their niche with them, thats why we are so extrordinary. Clothing, for instance, has the same effect of blubber. It is our brain - the ultimate adaptation almost - that allows us to plan for any scenario and bypass milllions of years of evolution. So, no, humans would not evolve in polar regions (beyond local adaptation to diet, altitude etc) because their niche fundmentally remains the same. If surrounding temperatures rose by even 20 degrees, they would just take some layers off. With these artificial barriers to aid our survival, we will not be exposed to strong enough selective environmental pressures. To some extent, the human brain is the "get-out-of-evolution card".

Predation on young? We can kill them. Disease? We can make drugs. Fertility? We can artificially inseminate.

There isnt alot out there that can touch us. But if we took off our clothes, you might wonder, why cant we evolve now?

The answer is because their isnt enough pre-existing variation in the human form to build on. If you look at other polar animals, such as the artic fox, you will find alternative forms on lower latitudes. The artic fox, with simple winter time adjustments in its fur layering, is able to survive winter-time arctic temperatures. It cant in the summer time, because its fur is essentially no different from any other fox in temperate regions. The point is, the fox had a "reserve" mechanism to fall back on in evolution. Simple adjustments in fur density and layering allowed to acquire a range accross polar regions. The human lineage is in hot africa, with no such need for warmth. Because of this, human populations cannot take, physiologically, the initial risk of entering polar regions (without clothing), without dying. If humans die on instant exposure, then any mutations, (perhaps contributing in time, to an appropiate adaptation), will be lost. Its only with successful reproduction, time after time, that evolution can occur.

Humans will never evolve a blubber-rich physiology in polar regions (allowing nakedness), because they will just die everytime they try.Natural selection cannot craft perfect organisms.

Scott, im just telling it like it is. The guy in the video is not only totally clueless, he is academically dishonest - and he wants you to be as well. Trust me, im not trying to fool you.

I realize that it can be frustrating when debating sometimes, but it's starting to get out of control here. All I ask is that you cool your jets. Everyone is bias to a point when debating another whom they disagree with.

Creation makes very exact predictions and you know exactly what they are. Your only mad because every science confirms our predictions and leaves you constantly changing yours.

Even the topic at hand confirms the predictions of creation - simply because we predict adaptation by means other than genetic mutation and natural selection. And as it turns out, antibiotic resistance is the result of the genes "pre-existing" ability to produce a different protein when needed. No change or slight mutation occured to the gene, so it does'nt fit with your babbling either way.

LOL that isnt a prediction though is it? Simply saying "this hasnt happened" does not advance anything. Yes, supposing evolution "hasnt happened", what then? Why does this "prediction" support YEC and not some other worldview? Surely, it could just as easily be an absense of Natural selection, not a complete falsification of evolution.

THINK ABOUT IT

Can this prediction be tested? Yes, but only with the absense of evolution, and even then, you do not have an alternative explanation. So, YEC scientists, the worldover, are about to start some experiment, and what do they predict? "Evolution hasnt happened here"? Maybe not, but how do you know YEC is the answer?

Doesnt it alarm you - even slightly - that all YEC seems to do is poke "holes" in evolution? YEC is based on a percieved dichtomy between religion and science, dont you see?

All that YEC does is pick desperate arguments of "evolution not happening" from a whole variety of fields hoping that people will be fooled. Okay, im a scientist, i dont have any particular attachment to evolution, so lets here an alternative. But one that makes sense.

The only thing that guy in the video is testing, is other peoples patience.

Stasis in the fossil record is also a prediction of creation. If things were created , then it would easily be seen in the fossil record that they don't evolve. And there is no better proof of that than precambrian cyanobacteria. Making up ad hoc excuses to try and shoehorn stasis into the TOE is a contradiction of the very premise used to justify it.

But APPARENT statis is explanable with evolutionary theory, as i have demonstrated. In fact, its entirely expected within evolutionary theory. If organisms are dynamic, adaptable things, then they can just as easily not evolve. What do you suppose a photosynthetic bacterium should have evolved into? A human? Why would evolution occur, and be necessary, when they can grow and reproduce already (very quickly) and their environment has remained constant? Its not an excuse, its what happens when evolution isnt happening; when gene frequencies are in equilibrium. You can see it in a lab, the same frequencies, generation after generation after generation. No change in gene frequency = no prolifation of a given allele = no evolution of population. Many things can cause that. Things you patently havent considered. If your going to argue, at least argue about what we actually understand as evolution.

How many global extinctions do secular scientists claim occured? At least five that I know of. And now you wish to posit that no selective pressure has ever been applied to cyanobacteria during those five major extinctions?

How do you know there hasnt? What you are referring to may indeed be a cyanobacterium - but it is one of many. Many species of cyanobacterium may be extinct. Who knows? Some obviously survived. Do you know we cant even extract ocean going bacteria, and so our species estimates are actually dramatically underestimated?

Yes, mass extinction events may have caused selective pressures in cyanobacteria, and they may have evolved in reponse. They can still LOOK the same to our eyes.

The frozen bacteria and the wild types referenced, have never been exposed to any of the synthetic antibiotics produced to counter-act resistance to antibiotiocs.

Even penicillin has been chemicaly re-engineered many times.

It doesnt matter. How does this negate the reality of evolution? Could it be, as ive said, that "synthetic antibiotics" share high levels of structural similarilty with those naturally occurring? Is it not presumptuous to rule out evolution before testing, or even considering, this (and other) hypotheses?

Ã‚Â May I remind you evos there is a case of reverse adaptation which denies evolution.

Never heard of that one before. Reverse adaptation? DMS emission does not qualify as "reverse adaptation" (quite a misleading title); because "reverse adaptation" is nothing more than habitat modification.

All organisms have some ability to modifiy their environment, because otherwise, they wouldnt actually be alive. I have said before, Life a conduit of energy. It takes energy from somewhere, utilises it, and emits it somewhere else. Many organisms produce protective substances, or substances which will enhance their growth (perhaps by decreasing that of other species - antibiotics). As with anything else, the proliferation of these products, if having a significant influence on survival, will be subject to natural selection.

Making ones surroundings change so it can survive is not an evolution process.

Not its not, is something that organisms do which may alter their chances of evolving.

LOL that isnt a prediction though is it? Simply saying "this hasnt happened" does not advance anything. Yes, supposing evolution "hasnt happened", what then? Why does this "prediction" support YEC and not some other worldview? Surely, it could just as easily be an absense of Natural selection, not a complete falsification of evolution.

You can continue in your rejection of data and continue claiming that "this has happened" occured, but the empirical data has verified a change in the protein not a genetic mutation. Attacking creation simply because your prediction failed is'nt going to advance anything either. Their are only two known origin models - naturalism and creationism - so it either supports one or the other. Saying "so what, if evolution is falsified it still does'nt prove creation" is absurd.

It doesnt matter. How does this negate the reality of evolution? Could it be, as ive said, that "synthetic antibiotics" share high levels of structural similarilty with those naturally occurring? Is it not presumptuous to rule out evolution before testing, or even considering, this (and other) hypotheses?

Yes they are similar, but they did'nt exist 140 years ago and have never been introduced to wild populations. Why do you think they needed to synthetically re-engineer the antibodies? Because the bacteria became resitant so the chemical structure had to change. That has been tested, you simply continue to reject the data in favor of wild speculations rather than accept empirical reality.

If you wish to continue equivocating and clutching at straws by calling a "pre-existing" ability to produce different proteins evolution, then I wish you the best of luck.

You can continue in your rejection of data and continue claiming that "this has happened" occured, but the empirical data has verified a change in the protein not a genetic mutation. Attacking creation simply because your prediction failed is'nt going to advance anything either. Their are only two known origin models - naturalism and creationism - so it either supports one or the other. Saying "so what, if evolution is falsified it still does'nt prove creation" is absurd.

Lol, what data? If you can produce any data gathered by creation science ill be amazed.

Data is something gathered from observation. YEC's observation is GOD. The functioning and mechanics of the natural world are entirely irrelevent to the reconstruction of YEC. If anything, they are a distraction. The YEC earth was one subject to unknowable, unique conditions. Things - everything - back then, where different from today. Back then, GOD was a regular participant in the universe, popping up to create and destroy in equal measure. Back then, people could come from soil and ribs, and could live for hundreds of years. Back then, the earth was flooded, and a man took two from every species (yes, even those species we dont yet know about), in a big boat.

Its so immature, the whole thing, it really is. Essentially, what you are saying is that man's knowledge has not increased in 2000 years, and more than that, it hasnt had too. Personally, i think the last century was the worst in humanity's history. Statistically, im right. Millions upon millions died in war, disease, famine or good-old persecution. No disrespect to God, but, one might be tempted to ask him why he didnt put in an appearence. Back in the day, you couldnt move for burning bushes, "thou shalt" this, and "the lord" that.

Your naivity of the scientific method is astounding, as is your portrayal of the debate. The very fact that you are calling evolution an "origin model" shows your real agenda. Evolution is not an origin model, it is a model of speciation, and descent with modification.

This is not an issue of good science VS bad science; of opposing hypotheses. Its an issue of worldview of morality and of faith. You dont like evolution because its not convienent for you, and it doesnt pretend to be. Humans are sinful, lustful, aggressive and unaccountable organisms. In a naturalistic world, there is no "good" no "bad", and humans came around unguided. The only thing stopping us is our concience, and empathy for other creatures.

Its so inconvient - so degrading - that i dont think you would even read up on it. You believe man is distinct from animals; above and in control of the world and only accountable to a higher power. So lets be honest about it.

From an honest perspective, special creation is not the only alternative to evolution by natural selection. Indeed, in the infancy of evolutionary science, other forms of speciation were considered. In the modern arena, however, evolution by natural selection has become the unifying theory of biology. It explains everything. The only opposition comes from religious positions, held, long before evolution was even discovered (and it WAS discovered), which havent changed one iota with new evidence.

Yes they are similar, but they did'nt exist 140 years ago and have never been introduced to wild populations. Why do you think they needed to synthetically re-engineer the antibodies? Because the bacteria became resitant so the chemical structure had to change. That has been tested, you simply continue to reject the data in favor of wild speculations rather than accept empirical reality.

If you wish to continue equivocating and clutching at straws by calling a "pre-existing" ability to produce different proteins evolution, then I wish you the best of luck.

Again, what data? What data do you keep talking about? An ancedote from a newpaper clipping or a quote from Hilary Clinton? YEC has got to be the only scientific discipline which is so determinedly unscientific, actually taking quotes from POLITICIANS, of all people, to TEST and indeed FALSIFY entire scientific theories. Its pathetic. Stand up for whats right, you know this is crap scientific practice. No scientist worth his salt would draw "data" from isolated and out-of-context sources (and i use the terms "data" and "sources" very loosely indeed). This is world changing stuff here - evolution has finally been falsified - and theres about as much scientific value in it as a piece of cheese.

You havent read what ive written. Antibiotics are naturally occurring compounds, produced by many organisms (bacteria included). By design or coincidence, modern antibiotic(s) shared structural similarity with the resistance patterns found in gut-microbes, or closely related species (or indeed simply species using the same antibiotic via convergent evolution - quite a common occurrence). Has "PhD" considered these options?